1 | P a g e

Esso Exploration & Production Chad Inc.

Village Impact Quarterly Report

Land Use Mitigation Action Plan

Second Quarter 2014

Prepared by the EMP Department

July 2014

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 4

1.0. Village Classification 6

1.1. Land Use Criteria and Trends 7

1.2. Compensated and Returned Land by Land Use Type 10

1.3. Socio-Economic Criteria 11

2.0. Socio-Economic Monitoring

2.1. Surveys: Status Update 14

2.2. Base line survey of 2014 promotion 15

3.0. Milestones of Q2-2014

3.1. Moundouli’s community receives their flour mill 17

3.2. Closure of an oil well results in a new water well

for the village of Bouna - Kaba 18

3.3. BBS : 2014 promotion 19

3.4. Regional health center of Moundouli area. 20

Conclusion 21

Annex 1: OFDA Village Map

Annex 2: Village Classification Criteria’s

3 | P a g e

List of Acronyms & Terms Used in this Report

BBS

CRCP

CdM

EEPCI

Eligible

EMP

EMP-IS

ECMG

HH

HHH

HHM

IFC

IAT

LCC

MARP

NGO

Potential Eligible

Project Footprint

True Eligible

VLUS

WBG

EFC

V Process

Basic Business Skills Training

Chad Resettlement and Compensation Plan

Household Chief (Chef de Ménage)

Esso Exploration & Production Chad Inc (the Project)

Generic term to designate an individual that may be eligible to the EMP Resettlement Program.

Environmental Management Plan

EMP Information System: manages Land Acquisition, Socioeconomic and Land return data.

External Compliance Monitoring Group

Household

Head of Household

Household Member. Include the CdM and all it dependents, regardless their age.

International Finance Corporation

Improved Agriculture Training

Local Community Contact

Participatory Rural Assessment process

Non-Governmental Organization

Individual that may be eligible to the EMP Resettlement Program. Analysis must be completed.

Total area occupied by the project at a given time (e.g. Compensated but not returned land)

Individual eligible to the EMP Resettlement Program.

Village Land Use Survey previously called Cadastral survey. Refer to the measurement of every

field, fallow & house of households.

World Bank Group

Eligibility Factor Class

V Process refers to the monitoring of each interaction with an individual. Under this acronym

the VX refers to the version of the survey for the specific individual. For example the V2 would

refer to the data relating to the second survey for the individual. As a new survey takes place

with each interaction/land transaction between individuals and EEPCI we thus have the basis of

a continuous monitoring process.

4 | P a g e

Executive Summary

The Quarterly Village Report provides information to Esso Exploration & Production Chad Inc. (EEPCI)

management and its partners on the progress made in calculating, analyzing and reducing the

Project’s land use impact on villages and households.

Tracking and analysis of land use impact is the purpose of Village Impact Classification and the

“Watch List”. The classification follows the movement of a village from one category to another in

order to judge the effectiveness of Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Chad Resettlement and

Compensation Plan’s (CRCP) implementing procedures (e.g. the Land Management Manual) and the

system improvements made through the Land Use Mitigation Action Plan (LUMAP) or to signal when

ongoing Project land take requires the Project to review the situation and adjust plans as per the

Environmental Management Plan (EMP) principles.

The village impact classification (high, approaching high, moderate and low) is also used to:

• Improve the targeting of mitigation activities by more clearly defining an OFDA village’s

specific problems.

• Determine eligibility (actual versus estimated land acquisition) for Supplemental Community

Compensation.

The Second Quarter 2014 (2Q14) Village Impact summary:

• 3 High impact villages (Poutouguem, Danmadja &Madjo)

• 6 Approaching high villages

• 9 Moderate impact villages

• 14 Low impact villages

Three (3) villages changed classification during this quarter, Missimadji moving down from an

approaching high to a moderate classification while both Madjo and Danmadja moved up from

Approaching high to High Impact.

During the second quarter of 2014, six (6) villages saw an increase in the Project’s footprint while

fifteen (15) saw a reduction and eleven (11) remained unchanged (Table 2 below). The village which

saw the biggest net increase in 2Q14 was Dildo with an increase of 12.8 ha. During this quarter the

village of Kome Ndolobe saw a reduction of the project’s footprint of 20.4 ha.

The primary accomplishments of second quarter 2014 (2Q14) are:

General

• Development of strategies to promote synergy between various EEPCI related entities

managing socio-economic activities in communities of the OFDA.

• Participated in a series of mediation meeting with a group of local NGO’s under the guise of

the CAO.

• Held the SEWAC caravan in communities of the OFDA, this monthly activity seeks to

promote dialogue between the Project and communities in order to identify issues and

resolve them in a proactive manner.

• Drilling of a water well for the village of Buna Kaba, as per the plug and abandon program.

EMP and EMP-IS

• Progressed follow up of households impacted by the project, using improved impact survey

process. Focus efforts on at risk households. 254 surveys completed during quarter.

• Completed Q1-2014 Village Impact report and Posted onto ESSO-CHAD website.

• Integration of community compensation data into EMP-IS data base.

5 | P a g e

Resettlement Program

• 29 eligibles (2012 promotion) completed the post training portion of the Improved

Agriculture Training program.

• 21 eligibles (2013 promotion) started the post training portion of the Improved Agriculture

Training program.

• 2014 reinforcement program completed for 30 individuals, delivery of equipment and

livestock and training completed.

• Monitoring surveys ongoing with 32 still at risk individuals from the 2008 promotion. This

process will make it possible to identify potential recipients for reinforcement in 2015.

• BBS completed with the 32 individuals making up the 2014 promotion.

• IAT launched with 32 individuals making up the 2014 promotion.

Community Compensation and Supplemental Community Compensation Program

• Drilling of the two water wells selected by the population of Bemira is underway.

• Completed the construction and turned over flour mill to population of Benguirakol.

• Completed the construction and turned over flour mill to population of Moundouli.

Grievance management

• Grievances initiated during Q2-2014: 214

• Grievances paid during Q2-2014: 101

• Grievances closed during Q2-2014: 170

• Backlog as of June 30th

, 2014 : 72

Community consultation and awareness campaign

• 91 meetings

• 5814 participants • Main topics:

o Theft & vandalism act;

o Safety on roads;

o Land returned with restrictions;

o Malaria, security and opportunity of business with CIS.

Work Plan for Third Quarter 2014(3Q14)

• Ongoing Post training Portion of the Improved Agricultural Training program for 21 eligibles

from 2013 promotion.

• Ongoing Improved Agricultural Training program for 32 eligibles from 2014 promotion.

• Complete Q2-2014 Village Impact report and Post onto ESSO-CHAD website.

• Complete drilling of two water wells for Bemira (Supplemental Community Compensation).

• Start a review of the SSPs of recently impacted villages (SSPs older than four years).

• Continue integration of Community Compensation Documentation into EMP-IS database

• Continue Land Return Campaign.

• Retrofitting of flour mills in order to incorporate various guards to improve safety level for

users

• Finalize intervention strategy for theft and vandalism mitigation in local communities.

6 | P a g e

1.0 Village Classification

The village classification is calculated using land use (area of temporary and permanent take) and

two socioeconomic criteria (see annex 2 for details). Each criterion classifies a village into one of

four categories: High, Approaching High, Moderate and Low. It should be noted that the socio-

economic criterion made possible by investigation using the Village Land Use Survey (VLUS)

methodology provides a more direct measure of impact, and that this information is continuously

upgraded using the data collected through the Impact and Land return Surveys. This process

measures land holdings per capita and the number of currently non-viable individuals among the

total population of the village. For villages where the survey is not completed or is not being

implemented, we have had to rely on declarative data collected during land compensation in past

years; therefore the criterion becomes individuals made non-viable by Project compared to the

population of the village.

Table 1 : Village Classification Last Quarter

Categories Villages – 2Q14 Villages – 1Q14

High

• Poutouguem

• Danmadja

• Madjo

• Poutouguem

Approaching High (Watch

List)

• Béro

• Dildo-Bayande

• Dokaidilti

• Ngalaba

• Mouarom

• Moundouli

• Béro

• Danmadja

• Dildo-Bayande

• Madjo

• Dokaidilti

• Ngalaba

• Missimadji

• Mouarom

• Moundouli

Moderate

• Missimadji

• Bela

• Ndoheuri

• Begada

• Maïkéri

• Mbanga

• Benguirakol

• Maïnani

• Bemira

• Bela

• Ndoheuri

• Begada

• Maïkéri

• Mbanga

• Benguirakol

• Maïnani

• Bemira

Low

• Maikiro

• Kome-Ndolobe

• Madana Nadpeur

• Maïmbaye

• Meurmeouel

• Miandoum

• Morkete

• Kaïrati

• Naïkam

• Bendo

• Koutou Nya

• Maikiro

• Kome-Ndolobe

• Madana Nadpeur

• Maïmbaye

• Meurmeouel

• Miandoum

• Morkete

• Kaïrati

• Naïkam

• Bendo

• Koutou Nya

Low (Declared low through

other processes)

• Bedara

• Bekia 2

• Bekia 3

• Bedara

• Bekia 2

• Bekia 3

Villages in bold print have had a Site Specific Plan (SSP) performed.

Villages added to the list may have received Community Compensation but may not have lost land to

the Project. When the resident of a village is impacted by the Project even if impacted field is

located in another village the village of residence is automatically classified as being in the low

impact category and receives the corresponding Community Compensation.

7 | P a g e

Three (3) villages changed classification during this quarter, Missimadji moving down from an

approaching high to a moderate classification while both Madjo and Danmadja moved up from

Approaching high to High Impact. It should be noted that in both the cases of Madjo and Danmadja

they moved up to the high impact category even if the actual footprint of the project went down

during the quarter. This is due to the fact that the socio-economic criteria deteriorated during this

period. We believe that this situation should correct itself as the land return surveys are completed,

allocating returned land to their rightful users. As they retrieve land at-risk households would move

out of the at-risk category. The deterioration of the socio-economic criteria is also amplified issues

that fall outside of the Project’s control, such as:

• The rapid growth of the population and households; created by the rapid growth of the

population and of households;

• A traditional land allocation mechanism that doesn’t always ensure that returned land is

made available to households that need it the most.

Since the onset of 2014, the Quarterly Village Impact reports will now incorporate all facilities

associated to the Project. This more inclusive definition of the Project intervention area has given a

clearer perspective on the activities of the project in Southern Chad. This change resulted in the

incorporation of four new villages in the list of monitored villages (see table 1, page 6), being:

Moundouli, Benguirakol, Bemira and Maikiro.

As per the LUMAP, the Site Specific Plan (SSP) was developed to monitor the state of the most

impacted villages (18 villages). Villages for which a SSP was prepared are presented in bold in Table 1

(page 6). In all villages where SSPs were completed and fully implemented (17/18 villages), only low

residual impacts are believed to remain.

Implementation of two SSPs was finalized during the second quarter. They concern the flour mills

for the villages of Benguirakol and Moundouli. This leaves, only the SSP of the village of Bemira

which is in the process of being implemented. A review of the SSPs of recently impacted

communities, with SSPs older than four years, will be started during the third quarter in order to

establish whether the land take which took place recently in these communities would warrant new

support strategies.

1.1 Land Use Criteria and Trends

From a land use perspective the criterion is the area of the village affected by the project, note that

some villages can pass from High to Moderate or Moderate to Low as temporary land is returned, or

move up as land is acquired.

As shown in figure 1, the footprint of

permanently and still temporarily

occupied land (in the six fields of the

OFDA) was reduced by 21.1 ha, or

about 1 %, during the Q2-2014. The

footprint as it stood on June 30st 2014

(2152 ha) was the lowest it has been

since data is published on the matter.

The land returned is not the only

factor that counterbalances the new land take. The second factor is due to the fact that many of the

new facilities being established are in areas previously occupied by the project. An area already

8 | P a g e

compensated for an initial facility is simply reused for the new well, if it has not yet been returned,

without requiring much additional land acquisition. Using the fault block approach in reclaiming land

i.e. postponing reclamation until the work in the fault block has been completed, reduces the risk of

wasting top soil by re-acquiring newly reclaimed and returned land. Top soil in certain parts of the

OFDA and elsewhere in southern Chad is a scarce resource.

The calculation of additional land acquired is not straightforward as new facilities are now

overlapping old facilities. Simple addition or subtraction would compute the same area twice,

resulting in an overestimation of how much land has been acquired or returned (delta column)

compared to the previous quarter.

Table 2: Land Use by Village in OFDA.

When we consider the information presented in Table 2, above, we can easily note that the actual

reduction in the area occupied by the Project is not only limited to the case of villages located in the

three original fields (Kome, Bolobo and Miandoum) but is also a reflection of the situation of villages

located in the newer development areas of the OFDA (Maikeri, Timbre and Nya oil fields).

During the second quarter of 2014, six (6) villages saw an increase in the Project’s footprint while

fifteen (15) saw a reduction and eleven (11) remained unchanged (Table 2 below). The village which

9 | P a g e

saw the biggest net increase in 2Q14 was Dildo with an increase of 12.8 ha. During this quarter the

village of Kome Ndolobe saw a reduction of the project’s footprint of 20.4 ha.

As the Impact and Land-Return Survey processes became fully operational, identification of the

impacted land users can be calculated when or shortly after the impact has taken place (real time).

Since January 2012, the Impact Survey (both land take and land return) data has been fully

integrated into the system, the Project is thus able to make full use of this information at present.

If we consider the maximum land use of the Project, all villages on which such data is presented in

table 2, above, have known a reduction of their footprint in relation to their land use peak.

As the integration of impact survey data was completed, all impacted individuals who are deemed to

have been made non-viable by the Project or who were already non-viable before being impacted by

the Project, before November 1st

2013 (32 individuals in total), have been integrated into the roster

of the 2014 Resettlement Promotion. They have completed the literacy training program (BBS) and

are presently going through improved agriculture training (IAT) program.

10 | P a g e

1.2 Compensated and Returned Land by Land Use Type

This section presents the compensated and returned areas. Table 3 shows the current portion of

each Land Use Type out of the total Compensated Land. The “Returned” column shows the number

of hectares returned (on the left) and the percentage of returned area out of the total compensated

area (on the right), for each land use type. It should be noted that this data covers all of the land

requirements of the Project in Chad.

As was presented in Table 2 (page 8) the data presented above (Table 3 on page 9) confirms that

returned land more than compensated for new land take with a net footprint reduction over the

quarter. During this quarter 44.6 ha of land were compensated for, by the Project, while 65.7 ha

were returned to the communities. Overall, this resulted in 21.1 ha of net land return during this

period.

Table 3: Compensated and Returned Land by Land Use and Facility Type

• The column “total areas in hectares: compensated” shows the total area compensated since the project started up to the end of the quarter covered in this report.

• “Total areas in hectares: returned” shows the total area returned since the project started up to the end of the quarter covered in this report.

• “2Q2014: Compensated” shows the total hectares compensated during the quarter covered in this report.

• “2Q2014: Returned” shows the total hectares returned during the quarter covered in this report.

• Incorporates all of the activities of the project (all oil fields, roads, facilities, the pipeline and associated infrastructure).

Most (77%) of the land compensated during the second quarter was for temporary use and has

already started to be returned. It must be noted that land returned in the temporary category (59.5

ha) exceeded new temporary land take (34.3). The Project actually had a net reduction in its

temporary land use of 25.2 ha during the quarter.

Total area (hectares) 2Q2014 (hectares)

Land use type Compensated Returned Compensated Returned

Sub-Total - Permanent with public access-

1479.0 612.7 41% 6.7 2.9

Sub-Total – Permanent with no Public access

1135.3 149.5 13% 3.6 3.3

Sub-Total Permanent 2614.3 762.2 29% 10.3 6.2

Borrow Pit 656.6 508.4 77% 12.8 2.3

Others 45.4 32.1 71% 0.5 1.2

Sub-Total – Temporary returned without restriction

701.9 540.5 77% 13.3 3.5

Underground facility 1764.7 1705.6 97% 21.8 20.9

OHL 482.4 464.9 96% -0.9 26.8

Well Pad 670.6 608.3 91% 0.1 8.3

Sub-Total – Temporary

returned with restriction 2917.6 2778.8 95% 21.0 56.0

Sub-Total Temporary 3619.5 3319.3 92% 34.3 59.5

Grand Total 6233.8 4081.5 65% 44.6 65.7

11 | P a g e

During the fourth quarter of 2013

a new process was implemented

in order to expedite the return of

lands associated with overhead

power lines (OHL). The impact of

the land return process

implemented since October 1st

2013 is clearly illustrated by figure

2 (page 11). While 482.4 ha have

been acquired by the Project for

the establishment of overhead

power lines, 464.9 ha have already

been returned, 6% of which in the last quarter.

1.3 Socio-economic Criteria

Village level impact depends both on absolute amounts of land taken or returned and the way in

which land resources are allocated within the village. In some villages, people depend mainly on

farming for their livelihood. In others, a portion of the inhabitants depend on fishing as well as

farming; fishing families in these villages often have (and need) less farmland than in inland villages

and may already be below the general threshold of agricultural viability (2/3 cordes per HHM).

Others are recently established households who will progressively gain access to land from their

family land trust. These households may appear to be non-viable or marginal while in reality they

are simply in a transitional phase.

Attributing all non-viable household to Project land acquisition in these villages would overstate the

Project’s impact.

To distinguish between these two types of situations, the social criteria using compensation

database information were initially set according to:

1. The number of people already non-viable before they were impacted by the project and

2. Those that were made non-viable when they lost land to the project.

Completed village land surveys have demonstrated that the declarative data used to calculate non-

viability often overstated the number of people dependent on the household’s land and understated

the amount of land available. Therefore the number of non-viable households found through a

village survey presents a more accurate picture of Project impact.

Such data was not available when the Land Use Impact list was first calculated but now, as measured

data has become available for most villages, the pre-Project non-viability criterion has been

dropped. When the survey is completed and the village is open to reclassification only the current

but accurate criterion of currently non-viable HH (compensated and not compensated) has been

used.

12 | P a g e

While no better tool than the

declarative surveys is available

for the villages presented in

Table 4, it must be noted that

excessive reliance on this data

could lead the reader to some

interpretation errors. Please

note that the villages in this

table are those where no

Village Land Use Survey (VLUS)

has been performed.

The number of non-viable

households below 2/3 cordes

of land per HHM is much more

reliable in villages with

complete VLUS data given the

higher level of accuracy and the fact that

the whole village is surveyed versus only

Project affected households.

Table 5 presents the data originating

from the VLUS and now incorporates the

information from the impact and land

return surveys. Although most villages

have changed rating only five have

actually changed risk category.

• Missimadji moved down from

approaching high to moderate.

• Bela moved down from

moderate to low.

• Ngalaba moved up from

moderate to approaching high.

• Danmadja moved up from

approaching high to high.

• Madjo moved up from

approaching high to high.

While changes that occur may sometimes

appear to be fairly significant, they often

result from an interaction between the

Project and one or a limited number

households made non-viable through

land take or made viable through the

return of some land. This reflects the

ability of the Project to monitor the

status of project affected household in

the OFDA in real time.

It must also be noted that while returned land is removed from the Project’s footprint immediately

upon signing of the Quitus, it is only added to a household’s land basket during the following

Total non-viable

individuals today Value Now

Made non-viable by

project Value Now

Kaïrati 22.6 Maïmbaye 2.4

Madana Nadpeur 17.3 Madana Nadpeur 1.4

Koutou Nya 12.4 Miandoum 0.4

Miandoum 6.9 Merméouel 0.1

Bendo 2.6 Kaïrati 0.0

Maïmbaye 2.4 Koutou Nya 0.0

Merméouel 1.8 Bendo 0.0

Morkété N/A Morkété N/A

Table 4: Percentage of Individuals Made Non-viable by Project Land Take

According to the Declarative Database

13 | P a g e

production season. This ensures that the land has effectively been put back into production and who

has taken advantage of the land return. As Land Return Surveys can only be performed during the

ensuing cropping season, a village may remain in a higher risk category for 1, 2 or even 3 quarters

after land has been returned to its population. It is only after the completion and integration of the

Land Return surveys that the full impact of the returned land on the community will be reflected on

its classification.

14 | P a g e

2. Socioeconomic monitoring

2.1. Village Surveys

Table 6: Total Number of HH Survey by Village

The objective is to use the data generated by these various surveys and investigations to track each

community and household over time. Ensuring that the specific impact, whether they be a land take

or a land return, are accounted for and that the Resettlement option selected achieves its livelihood

restoration goal. Integrating all of this information will allow tracking the communities over time

ensuring that each community and individual HHH receives the kind of support which is best suited

to his/her situation as well as process and performance indicators regarding the effectiveness of the

Chad Resettlement and Compensation Plan (CRCP) implementing procedures.

Impact surveys: The Project is now surveying impacted HHs and integrating this information into the

EMP IS on a real time basis. Seventy three (73) new impact surveys were completed and integrated

during this quarter. While almost 53% of all the villages were visited during the quarter, most of

these surveys were related to the villages of Bero and Mbanga. In the case of Bero the fairly large

number of surveys completed (31) may not reflect the fact that the project’s footprint did not

increase dramatically (5.8 ha). Such discrepancies, which are not uncommon, arise because of the

following phenomenon:

• The infill drilling process, which tends to have concentrated impacts in relatively small areas,

it can occur that few families get impacted in a significant fashion mainly if they have

significant land assets.

15 | P a g e

• Although the project is now operating in real time, surveying impacted individuals shortly

after the land take, there may still be situations were up to three weeks may elapse between

the land take and the survey. 17.9 ha were added to the project’s footprint in Bero during

the first quarter of 2014.

• Furthermore the land return process presently being implemented results in the quantities

of land being returned simply exceeding the amount of land taken. In this way a village

facing a significant reduction or a limited increase of the Project’s footprint may still have a

significant number of new Impact (land take) surveys.

Monitoring: Only two (2) monitoring surveys were completed during the second quarter. The

interview process makes it possible to identify an individualized reinforcement strategy best suited

to the needs of the target households. Monitoring surveys to be conducted in the later part of 2014

are being limited to the promotion of 2008. As this is the last monitoring survey mandated for this

group of eligible, we opted to wait later in the year in order to get a perspective of the potential

impact of the upcoming cropping season.

Land Return: The 2013 Land Return Survey campaign started during the fourth quarter. During this

process, at-risk households who have received land as per the land return process in 2012 and early

2013 will be surveyed in order to measure the extent to which this has helped them recover. One

hundred and eighty one (181) Land Return surveys were completed during the quarter. During this

process at-risk households were visited in 16 villages, the villages of Bero, Danmadja and Madjo

getting the most attention.

2.2 Evaluation of animal health auxiliaries’ initiative

During the first and second quarter of 2014 a study was completed in order to evaluate the effects

of this training program on the beneficiaries and their communities. During this period, 10 auxiliaries

out of 15, representing 10 villages and three cantons, were interviewed. Each participant covers a

territory that includes a minimum of 4 villages; overall, the initiative has benefited about 60 villages.

They may thus travel between 1 and 7 km by foot or bicycle for each consultation, depending of the

village of residence of the client. The main animal health issues dealt with is related to parasites, lack

of appetite and anemia.

As presented in figures 3 and 4 (below) the demand for their service has been increasing steadily,

both in terms of numbers of consultation and income generated. In April they performed an average

of 22 consultations and

generating an average

20 000 XAF each. This

reflects the fact that the

level of trust between

these new animal health

service providers has

been increasing steadily.

The synergy established

between the animal

health auxiliaries and

representatives of the

various governmental

agencies involved in

animal production as

also contributed to their

acceptation by local

communities.

8

14

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

February March April

Av

era

ge

nu

mb

er

of

con

sult

ati

on

Figure 3: Average number of consultation per month

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e

3.0 Milestones of Q2-2014 3.1. Community of Moundouli receives their flour mill.

The original land take in Bemira village (2005) was relatively large and was reduced

progressively over a number of years. This land take led to an initial community

compensation (Three room school building and a water well). Since then a number of

additional land takes have taken place, most of them in 2011, these new land takes

triggered the preparation of a Site Specific Plan.

The purpose of a Site Specific Plan (SSP) is to define the village’s situation and identify a set

of measures that mitigate the specific issues the village’s population is encountering within

their own village area. This exercise made it possible to conclude that new measures, taking

the form of a supplemental community compensation package, were required in order to

fully mitigate these new land takes.

Community consultations were held during the first quarter of the year leading to the

selection of a flour mill as a compensation item. During the last quarter:

• The mills were built and tested;

• Millers were trained in the operation and basic maintenance of the mills;

• The management comity was formed and trained in management of such a facility;

• Various supplies, fuel and parts needed to operate of about 6 months, were

delivered and stored in the mill.

The mill was handed over to the community

June 27th

, 2014. During this ceremony the

chief of Moundouli 2 outlined that the mill

would support the long term development of

the community. He further added that the

profits generated by the mill would help

support other important activities in the

community, for example by contributing to

the payment of the salary of community

based teachers.

Hélène Ngou-nanemgoto one of the mills client explained

that the construction of this mill will greatly reduce her

burden. Not only will it significantly reduce the distance she

had to travel to have her grain milled but it also eliminates

the work load associated with hand milling grain when the

other mill was not operating. Overall this will result in a few

more hours per day that she will be able to spend with her

family, rather than working at chores. She appreciates the

fact that the entire community supported this choice even if

the main beneficiaries will be women.

Madjinaibey Alxis and Yossanem Clement (chiefs

of Moundouli 1 & 2) receive keys to the mill

from Montoingar Dimanche of EEPCI

Ngou-nanemgoto Helene,

Client of the mill

18 | P a g e

3.2 Closure of an oil well results in a new water well for the village of Bouna - Kaba

During the exploration phase of the Project consideration was given to offer water wells to

the nearest communities once the exploration wells were no longer of use. The objective of

this initiative was to mitigate some of the effect of the Project’s presence on communities

and leave a tangible sign of development by giving them access to clean water.

The decision was then made to offer a new well specifically drilled and equipped as a source

of drinking water to the closest village, when exploration wells are plugged and abandoned,

the name given to the process of closing down a well. The village of Bouna-Kaba is one of

the latest villages to have benefitted from this program.

On June 6th, 2014, a ceremony was organized to officially

turn over the newly drilled well to the community. The

chiefs of the village and of the canton, and the president

of the management comity took this opportunity to

thank EEPCI on behalf of their community and of the

village elders who had gathered in large numbers.

While a clean water supply system is of great benefit to a

community it must be managed from both a technical

and a financial point of view if it is to be sustainable.

EEPCI’s team with the support of the contracting firm

explained at length some of the key issues leading to the

sustainability of the initiative, being:

• Proper use and operation;

• Financial management to ensure

availability of funds for eventual

repairs;

• Maintaining the area clean in

order to maintain optimal sanitary

conditions;

While these considerations all have their

importance it was clearly outlined that

sustainability would only be achieved if

the members of the community took

ownership of this asset.

Buna-Kaba’s village chief

Demonstration in the proper use of the pump

19 | P a g e

3.3 BBS : 2014 promotion

Literacy training or the Basic Business Skills (BBS) Training is a requirement to gain entry into

the IAT or the off-farm training programs available through the resettlement program. The

main objective of the BBS is to give the eligible individual and auditors, who may choose to

participate, a working knowledge of reading and writing in Ngambaye, management, home

economics, self-reliance, hygiene and basic health.

Started in early January the literacy training program

concluded this year’s activities in early June. During

the closing ceremony, 113 individuals, of whom all

registered resettlement eligible individuals (32),

graduated from the program. In fact over 90% of

participants succeeded at their final exams.

The following observations can be made after 5

months of training:

• Overall, skills have been assimilated by

participants. Previously illiterate individuals can

now read and write.

• The method used made it possible to ensure

participation by all who wanted and the graduation

of most.

The village chief of Moundouly, Clement Yossanem,

took this occasion to underscore the importance of

education and encourage all of the stakeholders that

made this training possible, being EEPCI, ISM and

CEDIFOP, continue their work with participants so that one day they too may become

teachers.

In Benguirakol, participants through their chief saluted the patience of the trainers during

this challenging program. They also forwarded their appreciation to the Project’s team who

made all efforts possible to ensure that the program would achieve its objectives.

As a conclusion we can note that over the five years since the establishment of this

program, over 1500 individuals have successfully graduated from this program.

Clement Yossanem, village chief

Moundouli

Closing ceremony of the BBS in Benguirakol Closing ceremony of the BBS in Moundouly

20 | P a g e

3.4 Community health center of Moundouli area.

In December 2012, 11 villages of the Moundouli area

created a regional health center in the main building of

EEPCI’s Moundouli Camp. That had recently been turned

over to the community. As explained by the chief of

Benguirakol five of these villages donated 100 000 XAF

each in order to purchase the required supplies. Inventory would be maintained by a small

fee paid by patients. This is indicative of the importance given by the local leadership to

basic health services.

After only a few months of operation the managers of the clinic noted that the maintenance

of such a large wooden framed building could not be supported by the clinic. This initial

strategy would simply not have been sustainable. With the support of local leadership, they

decided to sell the structures they had received from EEPCI and build a more suitable

building with the proceeds.

The new structure was erected in 2013 to the satisfaction of the Clinic’s manager. They

have since received a donation, made up of bed frames, mattress and furniture, from EEPCI

through AfriCare and World Vision. The center’s manager outlined that such donations have

greatly alleviated the pain and suffering of the more than 300 patients they treat every

months and of the local population.

Guemdoudje Julien, Village chief

of Benguirakol

Beloumgoutou Jairus Health

Center Manager

21 | P a g e

Conclusion

A number of new activities were ongoing during the second quarter such as the launching of the IAT

program for the 2014 promotion, construction of three supplementary compensation projects and

the SEWAC caravan. While these activities have started to have significant positive impacts, on

villagers and their communities, only time will allow us to measure their level of performance.

From this report we can make the following conclusions:

1. Project’s footprint reduced by 21.1 ha.

2. 29 eligibles (2012 promotion) completed the post training portion of the Improved

Agriculture Training program.

3. 21 eligibles (2013 promotion) started the post training portion of the Improved Agriculture

Training program.

4. 2014 reinforcement program completed for 30 individuals, delivery of equipment and

livestock and training completed.

5. Monitoring surveys ongoing with 32 still at risk individuals from the 2008 promotion. This

process will make it possible to identify potential recipients for reinforcement in 2015.

6. BBS completed with the 32 individuals making up the 2014 promotion.

7. Monitored the effects of the training program for fifteen (15) animal health auxiliaries

previously trained.

8. Drilling of the two water wells selected by the population of Bemira is underway.

9. Completed the construction and turned over flour mill to population of Benguirakol.

10. Completed the construction and turned over flour mill to population of Moundouli.

The project continues to have important positive effects on communities and many individuals

whether they are Project affected and eligible for resettlement or not.

Annex 1

OFDA Village Impact Maps

Annex 2: Village Classification Criteria’s

Land Use Criteria

The criteria concerning Land Use impact represents the percentage of village area used by the project within each village. The boundaries of the village used to set the village area are not official and are computed based on a global survey of the village limits. The thresholds between levels of impact represent “natural breaks” or large numerical gaps in between villages.

Calculation of Land Use Impact

The final percentage used to classify the village’s level of impact is computed by adding the “temporary” land not yet returned to the land permanently used by the project:

Thresholds High ≥11% Approaching High 7% - 10.9% Moderate 3% - 6.9% Low 0% - 2.9%

Initial Classification with Compensation Data

Criterion 1: % all non-viable individuals/all individuals in the village

Description: Percentage of all project-affected individuals in the village currently below the resettlement factor of 2/3.

Rule:

Σ (All individuals below 2/3 cordes after land take)

Village Population

Σ Permanent Not Returned + Temporary Not Returned

Σ Village Area

Threshold:

Threshold Criteria 1 Min Max

High 50.1% 100% Approaching High 30.1% 50% Moderate 20.1% 30% Low 0% 20%

This criterion includes people who were already non-viable before the Project.

Criterion 2: % individuals in the village made non-viable by project land take/all individuals in village

Description: Percentage of the number of individuals that were economically viable before surrendering land/feeling any project impact (the resettlement factor > 2/3) but who became agriculturally non-viable upon surrendering land/ after project impact (the resettlement factor < 2/3 cordes).

Rule:

Σ (All individuals that were not eligible before land take & are eligible after

Land take)

Village Population

Threshold:

Threshold Criteria 2 High 20.1% 100.00% Approaching High 15.1% 20.00% Moderate 9.1% 15.00% Low 0% 9%

This criterion cannot be calculated with village land survey results and is no longer applied when a change in village impact classification is calculated.

Criterion 3: Reclassification with Village Survey data

Description: When a village reclassification is calculated and village survey data is available, a single criterion is used. This criterion represents all the members of the non-viable compensated households compared to the population of the village:

Rule:

Σ All members of non-viable compensated Households

Village Population

*This statistic excludes non-viable households with resettlement

options

Threshold:

Threshold Criteria 3 High 15.1% 100.00% Approaching High 10.1% 15.0% Moderate 5.1% 10.0% Low 0% 5.0%